Child Custody Outcomes in Cases Involving Parental Alienation and Abuse Allegations

Abstract

Arguably the most troubling aspect of justice system response to intimate partner violence is custody courts' failure to protect children when mothers allege the father is abusive. Family courts' errors in assessing adult and child abuse, and punitive responses to abuse allegations, have been widely documented. A significant contributor to these errors is the pseudo-scientific theory of parental alienation (PA). Originally termed parental alienation syndrome (PAS), the theory suggests that when mothers allege that a child is not safe with the father, they are doing so illegitimately, to alienate the child from the father. PA labeling often results in dismissal of women's and children's reports of abuse, and sometimes trumps even expert child abuse evaluations. PAS was explicitly based on negative stereotypes of mothers and has been widely discredited. However, the term parental alienation is still widely used in ways that are virtually identical to PAS. However, because PA is nominally gender neutral (and not called a scientific syndrome), it continues to have substantial credibility in court.

Ideology and Rhetoric Replace Science and Reason in Some Parental Alienation Literature and Advocacy: A Critique

“…We are concerned that PAS/PAD/PA claims that are accepted by the court risk being ill‐founded, especially when they are used to rebut abuse claims and other causes have not been adequately ruled out. As research studies (Meier et al, ; Milchman, ) and court decisions (Silberg & Dallam, ) have demonstrated, concerns that have arisen in our practices are not isolated or unique. It is sobering to think that retrospective evidence might not reduce the risk of misclassifying cases but might even increase it.…”

“…Other research has documented courts' tendency to adopt alienation labels even though supporting evidence for alienation is lacking (Milchman, ). Too ready acceptance of alienation as the reason why a child rejects a parent appears particularly likely when alienation is used to counter abuse allegations, with significant negative impact on outcomes for mothers purporting to seek to protect their children (Meier & Dickson, ; Meier et al, ). At minimum, a descriptive language is needed that is rich enough to counter decision‐making by labeling.…”

“…Some proponents say that PA is different from PAS because it re‐defines alienation to recognize multiple causes of a child's contact resistance. However, the usage of alienation continues to be no different from PAS in court cases, and additional causes are rarely if ever discussed or remedied (Meier, ; Meier et al, ). While these proponents acknowledge different causes of parent–child estrangement, they do not change the criteria for alienation.…”

“…It is important to ensure that those conducting evaluations and making decisions in court are knowledgeable about child abuse and domestic violence, trauma, bad parenting, and other key factors in family dynamics, so that they do not miss relevant details. Labeling the case an alienation one implies that causes other than alienation have been affirmatively ruled out when this may not have been done (Meier et al, ; Milchman, ). Unfortunately, this practice is common in our experience, as confirmed by national studies (e.g., Lorandos, ; Saunders et al, , ).…”

“…Such appeals distract from the need for specific, direct, affirmative evidence about the likely cause(s) for parent rejection in an individual case. Scholars who write about alienation (Drozd et al, ; Kelly & Johnston, ; Saini et al, , ), child abuse (Faller, ; Geffner & Sandoval, ; Milchman, 2018a), and legal issues (Meier et al, ) all agree that such an evidence‐based analysis is essential to accurate decision‐making. This article seeks to increase resistance to PAS/PAD/PA rhetoric among decision‐makers in cases in which children resist or reject a parent.…”